George,

As a longtime student of political affairs, I should know better than to try to predict the future. However, events are unfolding in such a way that it is possible to draw on similarities with the past and make some predictions.

George W. Bush is setting the stage for his demise in 2004. He will go to war with Iraq within a month and our troops will get bogged down in a prolonged, indecisive conflict -- the kind of situation in which Truman found himself in 1952 (Korea) and Lyndon Johnson found himself in 1968 (Vietnam). As the time for their re-election campaigns drew near, Truman and Johnson could see that they were in such serious trouble with the electorate that they did not even try to run again.

For those who may think that the public steadfastly rallies around their President in times of war, that is only true when we are fully mobilized to defend our country from a massive threat as we were in World War II. Limited wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, are volitional -- that is, the President can choose to go to war or not. (Recall that Korea was often called "Truman's War".) There is really no comparison between World War II and any of the subsequent, much more limited, conflicts.

If any President leads us into a limited war, there will be initial support from a majority of the public. But if the war is not successful; if we are getting nowhere in defeating the enemy, and we daily see disquieting pictures of casualties (including civilians) and the number of body bags begins to mount, opinion turns against the President who chose to get us into the mess. (It takes about a year or two for opinion to begin to turn.) That is what happened to Truman in 1952 and LBJ in 1968.

My prediction about George Bush's fate in 2004 is based on my assumptions about what is going to happen in Iraq. It is going to be a protracted conflict; no quick victory as so many are assuming. Saddam Hussein knows from Desert Storm that a frontal stand -- tanks and trenches in the desert -- is futile against our far superior weapons. He will make his stand in the cities.

In some parts of cities, his soldiers will offer fierce resistance. We will have to fight for each block against snipers, anti-tank weapons, etc. Our response will be to bombard the area into rubble. Those civilians who survive will stream into refugee camps where they can enjoy their new won freedom and appreciate our efforts to save them.

Our troops will be able to occupy other parts of cities with no resistance. But this will be a Pyrrhic occupation -- an occupation only in the sense that flies "occupy" a spider web. In these parts of cities, Saddam Hussein's troops will meld into the civilian population, perhaps even dressing in civilian clothes. As our soldiers patrol, they will often be the targets of snipers and hit-and-run guerilla attacks. In that situation, our high tech weapons (smart bombs, etc.) will be useless unless we are willing to kill many civilians to get one sniper, or one small, elusive guerilla band. The enemy will have home court advantage. They will know the streets and hiding places, be able to move freely among the civilian population, and know our movements. It will be much like Viet Nam in the sense that it will be a war fought among the civilian population -- a situation that puts great strain on American troops and has no conclusive battles. This kind of "occupation" could go on for a very long time, with some American casualties every week, and no end in sight.

There are those who say that a great many Iraqi citizens would prefer American occupation to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and that most of Hussein's soldiers will not put up resistance. In that case, the scenario I have just presented would be short-lived, with only a few pockets of fighters loyal to Saddam causing trouble for American troops. We should remember, however, that even if people hate their current leader, they love their country and will defend their land from foreign invaders. Recall, for instance, that the Russian people, under Stalin, fought valiantly against the German invaders in World War II. Furthermore, is it really possible that many Iraqi people will see America as a liberator, or will they see us as an imperial power (along with Great Britain) trying to get their oil and dominate the Middle East? And how do we think the Iraq people will feel about us when their relatives, friends and neighbors become "collateral damage"?

As many political commentators have pointed out, an American attack on Iraq will inspire many young people throughout the Muslim world to volunteer to become martyrs. With the seizing of Iraq, Muslims will have indisputable proof that the United States (along with Britain and Israel) are trying to dominate the Muslim world. The only way that radical Muslims can see to fight back is through terrorist tactics -- they do not have armies and modern weapons. By invading Iraq, President Bush is greatly increasing the chances of terrorist attacks on the United States.

But what about those chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein is hiding? Aren't we going to be a lot safer when they are destroyed? We seem to forget that the terrorists who have attacked the American people in recent years have found their weapons in America. They used American planes from American airports; the anthrax that was sent through the mails was American made; the Oklahoma City bomb was made from American fertilizer. Judging from this, the weapon that will be used in the next terrorist attack in the U.S. will most likely be devised from an American source. Yes, with American troops in Iraq, we can be sure that weapons of mass destruction will not come from there. But other countries also possess such weapons. For example, nuclear material for a dirty bomb could be obtained from North Korea, Pakistan, countries formerly part of the USSR, etc. How many countries other than Iraq are we going to have to "occupy" to keep these weapons from falling into al Qaeda's hands?

By invading Iraq, Bush inspires more Muslims to become martyrs and enhances the determination of al Qaeda to fight back. Another terrorist attack in the U.S. is almost assured. When it comes, President Bush will find it extremely difficult to explain to the American people how war with Iraq has made America safer.

And so, Bush is setting the stage for his downfall. Most regrettably, thousands will die and millions will suffer as this mindless war unfolds. I can only hope that Carl Rove reads this and advises Bush that he will lose the next election if he goes on this crusade into Iraq.

David RePass (electronic mail, February 27, 2003)